The Tucker Carlson / Putin Interview

 

Well, I heard Mr. Wallace talk about him

Well, I heard ol’ Chris put him down

Well, I hope Chris Wallace will remember

A real American don’t need him around anyhow [1]

 

Chris Wallace, the journalistic legacy tosser, was not impressed with Tucker Carlson’s interview with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, "The Vladimir Putin Interview," a television interview, that premiered on February 8, 2024, on the Tucker Carlson Network and the social media website X (Twitter). 

 

The Legacy sarcastically opined that it was a “softball interview”, and worse, called Mr. Carlson a “useful idiot.” The latter is a phrase used by and often attributed to Joseph Stalin [2] to describe non-communists (liberals and progressives in the parlance of our day) regarded as susceptible to communist propaganda and psychological manipulation. Mr. Wallace was particularly critical of Mr. Carlson for not pressing Mr. Putin on why he (Russia) invaded Ukraine, a sovereign country. [3] However, Mr. Wallace did not disclose why he did not vigorously pressure then-President William Clinton and his Secretary of State Madeleine  Albright, in 1999, when the United States of America (officially NATO) invaded Serbia, also a sovereign country. [4]

 

In my view, Mr. Carlson’s interview with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, was a service to America and the free world. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the interview’s form and substance, it was a fact that for over two hours, the international free world had an opportunity to understand Russia’s point of view on the war in Ukraine. 

 

Recently, I read 1476 pages of Michael T. Florinsky's brilliant history, Russia: A History and An Interpretation, Volumes I & II. As a student in the 1960s at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, his work was the text for my two semesters of Russian history. Professor (Columbia University) Florinsky's Russian history is an outstanding achievement that in my opinion is unparalleled. The depth of his understanding of Russian history is judicious and eminently insightful. If you wish to understand Russia and Putin today, you need to read these books.

 

Accordingly, I was able to listen to this interview with, I believe, a measure of clarity not common to most listeners, which certainly would include Mr. Wallace. Mr. Putin’s account of Russian history was in my view factual. 

 

It should not be doubted that Russia’s history is the sine qua non of Mr. Putin’s rationale for his policy decisions regarding Ukraine. And, if you want to end this war, you damn well better know why it started.

The Bolshevik Brest - Litovsk Peace Treaty of March 3, 1918, with the Central powers, [5] deprived Russia of her Polish, Baltic (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), and Belorussian provinces. Moreover, Russia also had to recognize the independence of Ukraine and Finland. It was also understood that granting Ukraine independence in 1918 meant the immediate invasion by Austro-German troops following Russian troop removal from Ukrainian territory. However, Ukraine's bid for independence at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 was rejected, which led to the incorporation of Ukraine into the Soviet Union. 

 

Subsequently, World War II (WWII) led to Nazi Germany's invasion and occupation of the Ukraine in July 1941, as part of the German invasion of the USSR. [6] This lasted until Spring 1944 when the Red Army began to penetrate into Galicia, and by the end of October, all of Ukraine was again under Soviet control. After WWII, the Potsdam Agreement, in August 1945, [7] and the Paris Peace Treaties signed on February 10, 1947, [8] formally recognized Soviet control over the recovered territories. In 1945 Ukraine, became a Soviet quasi-state, and a charter member of the United Nations. However, Ukraine was one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union from 1922 until 1991 and was governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union through, the Communist Party of Ukraine. Independence for the Ukraine was finally realized on August 24, 1991.

 

The pathological silence of Russian policy deliberations has always made it difficult to discern Russian intentions. However, when complete understanding is not knowable, it does not preclude or prohibit educated estimations, which then serve to craft intelligent policy decisions and the basis for a peace negotiation. I would proffer that Mr. Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine was taken by his perceived assessment of President Biden’s commitment to the Ukraine. [9] Meaning, that he (Russia) would not be challenged militarily by the United States or NATO. [10]

 

If Kyiv is to have peace, it will only result in a clear-headed appraisal and realistic assessment of the situ. Peace, I would proffer, is not a choice between status quo ante bellum, and the total annexation of the Ukraine by Russia, but rather something in between. Although a final solution may be onerous, the alternative may be catastrophic. The continued casus belli serves no one, except war profiteers. 

At present, the United States and its European allies seem perfectly prepared to carry on with the destruction of Ukraine, at the expense of Ukrainian and Russian lives, even though the legitimate interests of the combatants are a peaceful solution. Peace should not be sacrificed to political ambition and corruption, who at the moment seemed determined to fight this war to the last drop of blood. [11]

 1. To paraphrase Lynyrd Skynyrd’s song “Sweet Home Alabama,” recorded in June 1973, by songwriters: Ronnie Van Zant, Gary Robert Rossington, and Edward C. King.

 2. Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, was leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 until he died in 1953.

 3. Mr. Wallace’s lament, it is believed, refers to Russia’s most recent incursion in February 2022. Yet there was an earlier incursion in 2014 that resulted in the Russian annexation of the Crimea and Donbas region of Ukraine.

 4. NATO's 1999 military campaign against Serbia (Kosovo). The Americans and Europeans via NATO made a political decision backed by its military might at the time. The U.N. Resolution 1244 negotiated to end the war, and guaranteed Serbian interests and sovereignty in Kosovo. Yet, in February 2008, then US President George W Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, supported the Albanian Kosovars' declaration of Independence from Serbia -- a clear violation of international law, a UN Resolution, and the principle of national sovereignty forged out of the horror of World War II. Moreover, the crisis in Georgia (2008) was a direct result of American and European actions in Kosovo (Serbia). 

5. The Central powers in World War I (WWI), included Germany, Austria, Italy, and Turkey. Bulgaria also joined the Central Powers late in the war, however, although it was too late in the war little attention should be given.

6. AKA Operation Barbarossa, the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union.

7. The Agreement among three of the Allies of WWII: the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union.

8. Paris Peace Treaties, (1947) series of treaties between the Allied powers and five defeated European countries that had been aligned with Germany and the Axis powers during World War II, specifically Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Finland.

9. Vienna 1961 Redux: The Putin / Biden 2021 Geneva Summit http://thegreygrater.blogspot.com/2021/06/vienna-1961-redux-putin-biden-2021

10. There should be little doubt that the United States “is” NATO.

11. Baron Manfred von Richthofen; the full quote is, “Fight on and fly on to the last drop of blood and the last drop of fuel, to the last beat of the heart.”